2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the instant farm road is located in the Namnam-Gun B, Namnam-gun, the Defendant owned by the Defendant, and appears to have been used as the only passage to and from the land E, etc. for the purpose of entering and leaving the land, and that the land of the Namnam-Gun, the land category of the instant farm road is a road, but it is difficult to pass without construction of a road, such as electric poles and trees, etc., on the ground that the land category is a road. Interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, and traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic interference is not practically generated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do462, Dec. 14, 207); and “land” in this context refers to the land passage through which the general public flows widely, and it is not a road ownership or a right of passage, which is the ownership of a site or the right of conviction.

B. Examining the records of this case in light of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and it is difficult to see that there was an error of mistake of facts in the judgment below as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.